From Sen. J.B. Jennings:
Fighting Food Stamp Fraud
One of my major efforts this session is reforming Maryland’s fraud-ridden entitlement programs.
I promised to update you each week on a piece of my legislative agenda, and am especially proud to say that I am introducing a bill requiring Drug Testing to Receive Temporary Cash Assistance.
This past year, Florida passed a law requiring anyone who applies for TCA (food stamps) to submit to random drug testing. If the individual fails the test, he or she forfeits their privilege to receive food stamps.
In the case of families with children, the money would go to the Department of Social Services to provide for the children’s needs.
There has been a nationwide rise in cases where individuals are fraudulently abusing government assistance to subsidize their drug additions rather than using the cash assistance for the intended purpose of providing food to their families.
Federal data indicates that Maryland ranks 2nd in the nation for food stamp fraud. In fact, additional General Fund tax dollars are required to support TCA payments this year and next, because Maryland’s poor record has caused it to lose federal block grant dollars that would normally pay for the program.
Sadly, since President Obama took office, Justice Department data says that the number of criminal prosecutions for defrauding food stamp programs has dropped 20% to its lowest in a decade. While the Administration and the Justice Department are taking a passive approach to deter fraudulent TCA abuse, my bill will do the opposite.
The TCA program is meant to provide for needy families in desperate circumstances, not to enable further substance abuse, fraud, or child neglect. Random drug testing would be a first credible step by the State to reduce program abuse and prevent more wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.
I will keep you informed on the progress of this bill, as well as the one I discussed last week (locking the Transportation Trust Fund so it can’t be raided for non-transportation projects).
If you have an opinion on this bill or any other, or on the tax-and-spend budget that Gov. O’Malley proposed this week, please contact me.
As always, I am proud to represent you.
Sincerely,
Senator J.B. Jennings
Thanks to My Family’s Hero
It’s not every day that you get to thank someone who saves a life you care about.
But on the Saturday night before session began, I got to do just that. I hosted my second annual Pre-Session Party at Richardson Farms in White Marsh, and was honored to welcome flight paramedic Chris Tappan as my guest of honor.
Chris was on the MedEvac helicoptor that took my dad to Shock Trauma in October following his tree-trimming accident at the house.
MedEvac flight paramedic Chris Tappan and his wonderful family. Chris helped save my dad’s life.
Surrounded by more than 100 constituents, neighbors, my fellow Air National Guardsmen, and most importantly, my family, I was able to recognize Chris for the work he does every day to save lives like my dad’s.
You may remember back in 2008 that a Maryland MedEvac helicoptor crashed amidst foggy weather conditions, killing an accident victim aboard along with its flight paramedic, emergency medical technician, and pilot. This job is dangerous. The sacrifice and courage of paramedics like Chris is amazing. I was especially touched to meet his wife and young son as well.
As I noted in my remarks that evening at Richardson’s, there are a lot of things that Maryland does wrong. But one of the things we have right is our emergency medical services. Our state-run MedEvac program is top-notch, and it’s because of people like Mike.
I want to thank everyone who joined me for our great evening. We enjoyed steak sliders, a mashed potato bar, cornbread-wrapped bacon (I had to try it!), and plenty of great company. Even my father was able to join us.
My parents, Joyce & Gary, at our pre-session party. I’m glad they could be there, for so many reasons.
If you haven’t had a chance to visit Richardson Farms , please do. It is an example of a local business that is thriving by listening to its local customers. The owner, Les, offers an excellent selection of baked goods, fresh vegetables & fruits, and hot deli lunches. Please support them if you are in the area, on Ebenezer Road between Belair and Rt. 40.
I’m already looking forward to seeing everyone there next year!
Could the Senator provide a link to the, “Federal data indicates that Maryland ranks 2nd in the nation for food stamp fraud.” I would like to see it.
Proud to be Liberal
Senator Jennings did not post his letter to the Dagger. The Dagger posted a letter from Senator Jennings to his constituents.
I suggest that if you want additional information or statistics you call or email Senator Jennings for that information.
He asked the Senator for that not the dagger. I too would like to see it although I have found the Senator is the one representative of my district not prone to distorting faacts and grossly exagerting data.
Then both you and Proud should E-Mail the Senator if you want the information. The Senator did not, and is not, posting on the Dagger.
Do you really need proof??? Open your eyes and look around!! Not only are people who are unemployeed due to the current president and are collecting. There are so many drug users and people who have become lazy due to the fact of this administration! The “intitle” attitude of the democrats are a big reason why people dont work and expect everyone else to pay their way. I myself know of a few families that collect unemployment and food stamp while one parent is making over $40,000 a year and the other is working off the books. They claim to be seperated to collect our tax dollars and our state just gives it to them. Who checks on these things!! I would love to get close to $900. a month for my food bill. Should we all lie like this or go back to our American values of get a job and earn it!!
Current President? Were you living in that self delusional period between Clinton’s Surplus he left the country and getting back your money and not paying down your debt? Were you awake when we were engaged in two wars “Off the Budget”? Were you living in bliss as the housing market inflated so rapidly that you never thought the thin elastic shell would burst? Do you have any idea how ignoring the events of those 8 years contributed to the reality AFTER the current President took office? I was aware of it. I complained about it, but I was dismissed as ‘One of them”, and now I get to listen to even more of this delusional tripe where you fail to address the root causes of your current problems.
Random drug testing sounds like a great idea in theory, but the food stamps in question are to provide for children, not the adults who might test positive. If the caretaker lacks the resources to feed his/her children, and we can assume they do given access to TCA, then the kids go hungry because mom/dad has a problem. Giving the money to Social Services would not feed the kids in the care of a parent who tests dirty. In the state of MD having a drug problem does not automatically deem one an unfit parent, so it’s not like the kids would be removed from a parent’s care for testing dirty.
If the parents are drug users, then the children should be taken away. No questions asked!
The current accepted model for CPS is to try to keep families together as long as possible, because studies show that kids always do better when they are with family.
Obviously, they pull the plug at some point, however.
Not everyone agrees on that point.
Yea…ask any police officer who’s been around for a few years working in areas filled with gov’t subsidized housing how well that policy works. It’s pretty sad when they deal with some of these “parents” and know that in a few years they’ll be dealing with pretty much the same drug fueled problems involving the kids instead of the “parents.”
Leaving children in a totally dysfunctional household that has a revolving door of adult males, drug usage, and domestic problems is a fantastic idea.
I work at a grocery store and I had three guys (in their 20’s) buying munchies and sodas for their Friday night. The one who was paying using his food stamp money was joking around with the others ones on how he only had so much money left on his card and who was going to pay for the rest.
I see so much abuse of food stamps. The sad thing is some are people I know that live in a household that both the husband and wife are working good jobs. How are they getting food stamps if they are both working??
It largely depends on how many kids and other people are living in the household. 3 people it’s about 24k a year, 4 is around 28k, and it goes up from there. Two people working full time at $8/hr would be over the limit for 3 or 4, but not if one of them only works part time.
Because of the economy many more people are taking relatives and/or friends into their household, which creates larger households, which means more people could qualify. You may have 2 people working, 2 kids, 1 brother unemployed, and a mother.
This above is limited to food stamps.
the family I am referring the dad made 90,000 a year!!!
Maybe Maryland is different, but I work in a neighboring state in the ‘welfare’ system. Anyway, Jennings words are a little confusing in that TCA is usually TANF were the client gets actual money. Food Stamps is Food Stamps, some states have moved to EBT cards that work just like debit cards. Not exactly sure how you buy drugs with EBT cards or Food Stamps, maybe dealers take them as payment now, not sure.
They have alternate people listed on their EBT that can use the account, or they simply allow someone to buy groceries on their EBT and get cash in return for the “Favor”. I know someone who did this. I never was asked to this for her but she did it with relatives and probably others. I usually bought groceries and food for her with my cash. That still enabled her to divert money to support her boyfriend and her illicit drug activity. I reported it, but she has had her fourth child now and probably did it just to get more food money.
some people have a cash side to their food stamps, which they can pull off their card.
Well this is typical. While the corporate stooges behind the tea party, the shady characters who played expensive games with their money, and the oil companies that rape the land and lobby for war, this petty little minion goes after some mother with an addiction trying to feed her kids. I am sure this one will play well in a company board room near you.
Likely because she and her kids will never amount to any more than fodder for discussion on a local website. How about squeezing them until they finally admit they have a problem so they can get the help they really need instead of a hand out and more enabling behavior? Or do you believe marginalizing them with a “Convenient Compassionate Subsidy” makes them more manageable?
I don’t understand how anyone can justify children going without basic needs because they have a parent who is marginal. As for her kids never amounting to anything, why not reach out to them on a one on one basis and be a mentor, support or just a friend.
Tried that… got used… she was supporting her boyfriend/husband’s drug habit.
you know I do not care what you put in front of legislative there is always a way to beat the system. Instead of taking money and foodstamps away try touse that money to help the person get on the right track, not take the kids away. Where is this money coming from to pay for the testing?
@Billy Jack
Compassionate stupidity is still stupidity. We have had a war on poverty for over 40 years and all we’ve achieved is a drug/alcohol addled permanent underclass with no hope and no future that sucks the lifeblood out of our society.
The solution? Soylent Green. I have never heard such an attack on the poor and less fortunate on The Dagger. I’m sick to my stomach. I pray for simpler times without an “us vs. them” mentality. When people actually gave a damn about others. Be it a neighbor, co-worker, etc. Now it’s all about what 30 second sound bite we digest from 24 hour cable news (“overtaxed! class warfare! the war on religion!”). If I were religious, I’d pray for us all. We are doomed and it’s only going to get worse before we make it any better.
@Watcher
When exactly were those “simpler times” when everyone was nice to each other and we all got along?
Was it in the 1960s during the riots and assassinations, the 1920s during prohibition and the rise of organized crime, the 1930s deep in the depression or the 1860s US Civil War and assignation of Lincoln?
Porter – Thanks for illustrating my point.
@Watcher
Are you really that dense?
@Porter – quite the contrary. But thanks for proving it again.
For the record Watcher, I gave a damn. I tried very hard to help someone less fortunate. For my efforts I was lied to and disparaged and ignored. And all that cost me was three years and $50,000 of personal effort. The “Poor” person is on her own now. Her choices are all invariably bad and efforts to alert state services to this problem have all failed because of their inability to give more of a damn than I did. It is rare for me to come to the aid of Porter, in this case he does not need my aid, he does deserve my agreement, but you have earned my contempt for your willful ignorance of the notion that you really can’t help people who refuse help. The young lady I referred to earlier has earned a good swift kick in the backside from the state and from her parents for all the entitlement she has used to support her boyfriend/husband’s drug problem and their mutual interest in trafficking. Test them, remove them from the welfare support for people who do not subsidize their poor lifestyle choices with state money, provided by the responsible people who make good choices.
@David A. – you’ve given that example quite a few times. Unfortunately, I’m fresh out of gold stars and cookies. See, here is the difference (no doubt one of many) between us. I do many of the same things. Except I don’t publicize it or look for credit. Do something because you want to, not because you think it makes you look better. Or dare I say you had far more ulterior motives for helping a “lady?”
Nevertheless, I’m not sure why I’m being taken to task for wishing or hoping things were different with out political discourse. You disagree? Wonderful. That’s your right. But why get confrontational or defend the other Porter when he/she does?
It’s people like you and many others who post on here that are not helping us move ahead and climb out the ooze we find ourselves in. You’re content to disparage, name call and insult as a way of expressing yourself. I have no doubt that you’ll comment on this post also. I feel sorry for you.
@Porter
My comment to you was not about the war on poverty. It was about one mother with four children that you have referenced and criticized in this forum many times. My suggestion to you is that you take that passion and energy and reach out to the children in need in a positive manner. No matter how you may feel about this mother, the system that has failed her, or society in general, your only chance to intervene in a meaningful way with these four children is directly.
Whether you choose to do so or not is on you. Save one child and you save the world , at least for that child. Or you can continue to complain about the system, do nothing, and feel justified in your righteous indignation.
I appreciate what you are saying Billy Jack. I did it for three years, got taken for a ride by a girl who preferred to use her children as carrots, and herself as a potential partner. She was hiding the guy she was living with and lied about it constantly until I finally cut her off completely. She’s on her own now and regularly appears in MD Case Search along with the husband she married out of jail. Would you believe I even tried to talk with her parents about her troubles? They were silent. They enabled her for about 29 years now. With her and her new ex con husband those kids have little to no chance of having productive futures. Yes, I support welfare, but it should require responsibility and maybe some serious life counseling – and definitely mandatory drug testing. And maybe your continued state support should be contingent on not associating with criminals, or marrying them.
@Billy Jack
I am Porter not David A. Porter.
My apologies for confusing the two of you. Not fair to either one of you and I should have paid better attention. To David A. Porter, a sad situation indeed for you, but you still seem to be focused on the mother. She is not the one society is really concerned about, nor should be. It is her kids, victims just like you, that should be the focus. I would agree that the we have still not perfected the way to it, but advocating for the children is where my focus, and yours, should be.
Agreed, and I have tried to the limit I can for the kid’s sake. I helped her through the third pregnancy and held that baby girl two weeks after she was born. My son commented that it was a pretty good Father’s Day for me to be able to that little girl and her thankful mother. I’m not there now. She is on her own. I can do nothing more to help the kids or her.
While its probably true that one could commit fraud to finance a drug habit, I don’t see you fraud could only be committed by a drug addict. Two completely separate issues. People commit fraud with entitlements because they can or they know how. I believe the fraud report referenced here is about errors and omissions in granting TCA or food stamps to ineligible applicants more that recipients using the food stamp money to buy drugs. While its all lumped as “fraud”, it doesn’t mean that anyone granting these benefits actually was aware of fraud but more about the lack of true verification systems of identity, income, assets or residency. In addition, the $$$ saved by denying food to drug addicts and their children is inhumane as drug addiction is a medical issue not a crime issue.
Giving money to an addict enables them, nothing more. If they want public funds, they should have to be verified clean. I get drug tested to work, the same should apply. Every time I go to the store, I see people with two piles. One is their independence card pile, and the other their junk food they pay cash for. Often, their balances on their cards are hundreds of dollars. We should be saving money at every level, and this is one of them. There are certainly those that deserve help, but so many are gaming the system. Stand in line at a store in Edgewood if you don’t believe me.
All welfare programs should be run in the same manner as WIC: Limited food choices.
WIC only allows plain Cheerios, no honey nut or other fancy flavors, only the grape Juicy-Juice, etc. If you want ribeye instead of ground chuck, you should have to pay for it with cash you earned on the job. If you want pancakes, you should have to buy flour, eggs, etc and make them yourself (you’ve got all day, you’re unemployed), not the premade frozen ones.
I have previously worked in (not for) the offices of a large DSS in Maryland, and I believe the number one problem, beyond fraud, is the lax enforcement of rules already in place.
In that jurisdiction (and many others) there is a 60 month rule that proclaims that TCA (cash welfare, not food stamps) is limited to 5 years. However, the rule was not enforced regularly because 1) resources were not expended on enforcing it, and 2) because there are SO many exceptions and waivers that people end up at month 80, 100, etc. Some of those waivers are suitable, some are not. Some are abused or not credible.
After that, most of the staff in that office did good work. The interviews are very thorough, the documentation required is pretty strict. However, there are much less and more casual rules for food stamps than there are for cash welfare. Also keep in mind that each case worker, in such a larger jurisdiction, probably has more than 100 families on their load.
People figured out along the way and have begun abusing the food stamps program regularly. There do need be some changes in implementation of the program.
However, I am not convinced a mandatory drug test is the most cost effective one out there. Data coming out of Florida is contradictory right now.
This is an extremely popular vote-grab type of legislation, though. A great feather in the cap come next election despite it never passing into law.
I hope Mr. Jennings uses real informatino to inspire a real debate on the issue.
I find it interesting that Senator J.B Jennings is embracing a failed law based out of Florida. Since the law passed, the state hasn’t realized any real financical savings and to date less than 2% of the applicants have failed the drug test. As stated above, the recipients and those most in need of food stamps are the elderly and children. Connecting food stamp fraud and drug abuse is a red herring. I am all for government accountability and fighting this continous “war on drugs” but denying the elderly and children food stamps isn’t the correct path, IMO.
What is even more disturbing than the food stamp law out of Florida is the record of the Governor of Florida who by all accounts should be in prison. Governor Scott was the CEO of Columbia/HCA when the hospital was fined 1.7 billion for swindling money from the government. Scott was a part of the biggest Medicare/Medicaid fraud case in U.S. History. Gov. Scott took the 5th to stay out of jail. Now that I think about it, the Gov. knows a lot about fraud and swindling money from the government. Maybe he is the best person to go after food stamp fraud.
Contrarian,
The 2% number is the reported number of applicants that have failed the drug test. However, this number is somewhat misleading since it does not include the many people who were receiving assistance and quit applying when FL started drug testing. Many people who were on drugs just quit applying.
I don’t understand your position regarding the elderly. Are you saying that even if an elderly person is using illegal drugs they should still be permitted to receive welfare assistance?
You have no idea how many people quit applying for food stamps once the Florida law was passed. How many is “many people”? It could have been 5 or 5,000. The law is flawed and infuses two completely separate issues into one bad law. One can and does argue that drug addiction is a disease and should be treated as such. Is the goal to fight drug addiction or food stamp fraud? Again, one may have nothing to do with the other. If a mother fails a drug test do you immediately kick her off of the program and take away her ability to feed her children or do you try to enroll her in a drug treatment program OR is the mother of any concern to you (you meaning the government)Be prepared for the unintended consequences of poorly thought out policies. The mother fails the drug test, you take away her food stamps, starving children found in an apartment. Two separate issues!
My answer above should answer your question regarding the elderly. The point being made is that so far there is very little evidence of people abusing food stamps to purchase drugs. Should we drug test business owners for receiving subsidies and tax incentives from the government? If a person applies for a small business loan from the SBA should they be drug tested before being approved for the loan? Should students be drug tested before receiving financial aid? Should everyone over 65 be drug tested monthly before receiving their SS check? Do we drug test people receiving monthly SSI checks? Should veterans coming back from the war be tested each month before receiving their VA benefits? Is it ok to trade your food stamps for liquor because liquor is legal but not for drugs because drugs are illegal? There is no testing for alcohol abuse. How about cigarettes or snuff? Good night.
@contrarian
SBA doesn’t make loans. The SBA guarantees the loan for the bank making the loan and the SBA charges an additional 3% guarantee fee paid by the borrower. But I guess you now realize your example was weak, foolish and not comparable since an SBA loan actually is more expensive than a conventional loan. Not anything like food stamps which are provided at no cost.
And heck you state it won’t save any money since Florida had just a 2% drug test failure rate, so it really doesn’t affect many people.
Porter what I realize is that you are weak and foolish. The examples were given because those programs are some how affialiated with the government, tax payers dollars, tax payer resources, government workers, govt. subsidies etc. Check out your local SBDC (Small Business Development Center) in Harford County. Is the proposed law a war on food stamps (government fraud) or a war on drugs. Two separate issues. If it is a war on drugs then he is taking the wrong approach just like the failed policy in Florida. If it a war on government fraud then we need to test everyone receiving government assistance. Or is that an overreach of the government?
David A Porter (what are you brothers/sisters?)I am equating my examples based on the law being proposed by Jennings and what happened in Florida. In answer to your question should we not test people receiving SS benefits or disability? What if they are drug users? What if they are trading their disability check for DRUGS! From your example above, I couldn’t agree with you more. Perhaps you should write Senator J.B. Jennings and request that he include language in his food stamp bill for people receiving disability checks as well. Test them all and don’t forget the businesses/developers who receive government funding (your tax dollars) for their commercial projects.
You missed my point, or you chose to ignore it, I believe the latter. The state does not need to subsidize the poor choices of some people at the expense of the largely responsible public. If they need help, this will identify them. Of course it’s far easier to identify them than to get them to admit they need help. It’s a lot like posting a differing opinion on this comments page. Contrarian: A contrarian is a person who takes up a position opposed to that of the majority, no matter how unpopular [or whatever the cause]. Contrarian styles of argument and disagreement have historically been associated with radicalism and dissent.
I’m not sure how you can equate a food program for the poor to social security benefits for people who have retired or are on disability. And if you want to go there, I can oblige. I knew a woman in Baltimore who had an 18 year old son that received a regular social security disability benefit because he was diagnosed with Oppositional Disorder. As we recovered his mother’s ring from a pawn shop he was on his cellphone talking with someone about how he has Darvocet for sale. So maybe we should test people on disability benefits for drug use, and if they are on something they are not supposed to be on, terminate their entitlement.
In the end, the Bill will not pass in MD. The Harford County Delegation will have once again wasted an entire General Assembly Session on issues not affecting or overly important to HC residents. Where are the jobs? Fix my roads!
Since you enjoy this sort of thing here are the answers to your questions provided by other people in this forum: Jobs? Reduce government regulation and you will see a rebirth of trickle down economics. Improve roads? Improving roads or widening them only invites more traffic. Now if you find any of these concepts to be absurd, you will end up not being so contrary.
@David A. Porter. You have me all figured out. I am an argumentative, radical, dissenter because I don’t agree with your position on drug testing applicants who are applying for food stamps. Quit judging me by a made up name. If you continue, I may have to define what a David A. Porter is….
I was paraphrasing Wikipedia. Notice I chose to use something that does not have a definition you object to.
Hey Contrarian,
“I find it interesting that Senator J.B Jennings is embracing a failed law based out of Florida.” – How is this a failed law?
“Since the law passed, the state hasn’t realized any real financical savings and to date less than 2% of the applicants have failed the drug test.” – That is a misleading statement. The drug tests started in mid July, 2011 and then were halted in late October, 2011, via court order. Prior to the testing, there were about 8600 applicants, once the testing started, there were about 7000 applicants; meaning 1600 did not apply, for one reason or another. One may say it is because it is for some reason other then drugs, but common sense would tell you other wise. Also, there has been 32 failures. This means it was cut by about 19%.
“As stated above, the recipients and those most in need of food stamps are the elderly and children.” – Yes, and those are the people that are most likely not using illegal drugs and those are the people that will continue to receive aid.
“Connecting food stamp fraud and drug abuse is a red herring.” – Arguable. Is there a correlation between drug use and welfare fraud?
“I am all for government accountability and fighting this continous “war on drugs” but denying the elderly and children food stamps isn’t the correct path, IMO.” – The elderly and children wont be the ones punished as they are not the ones using the illegal drugs.
“What is even more disturbing than the food stamp law out of Florida is the record of the Governor of Florida who by all accounts should be in prison. Governor Scott was the CEO of Columbia/HCA when the hospital was fined 1.7 billion for swindling money from the government. Scott was a part of the biggest Medicare/Medicaid fraud case in U.S. History. Gov. Scott took the 5th to stay out of jail. Now that I think about it, the Gov. knows a lot about fraud and swindling money from the government. Maybe he is the best person to go after food stamp fraud.” – Well, this may very well be the case and this should be investigated, if found to be true, punished to the fullest extent of the law. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with the program.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul C. I don’t agree with you.
Prior to the testing, there were about 8600 applicants, once the testing started, there were about 7000 applicants; meaning 1600 did not apply, for one reason or another. One may say it is because it is for some reason other then drugs, but common sense would tell you other wise. Also, there has been 32 failures. This means it was cut by about 19%…..Common sense doesn’t lead me to the same conclusion. Of course, I am not as smart as you and obviously lacking in common sense. Maybe people couldn’t afford to pay the $30 to take the drug test? Maybe people are actually offended and believe their rights are being trampled on simply because they are in need of food.
“As stated above, the recipients and those most in need of food stamps are the elderly and children.” – Yes, and those are the people that are most likely not using illegal drugs and those are the people that will continue to receive aid. Here my friend you are just wrong. Children do not receive food stamps. The parents/guardian/adult of children receive food stamps for the care of the child. If the parent fails the drug test then the food stamps are taken away therefore affecting the innocent, non-drug using child. What do you suggest? Keep passing along the food stamps until we find a non-drug user in the family? Hand the money over to DSS and have the govt. workers go grocery shopping for the child? Unintended consequences. The program will cost tax payers more over the long run as we create a new govt. program to fix the fallout from this bill/law. The elderly, do we even want to drug test an 80 year old? If the elderly person happens to be on a fixed income like SS, do we really want to make them pay $30 for a drug test? If the 80 year old fails the drug test do we then deny himn/her food?
@Contrarian
So let me get this straight, I’m a non-drug user who receives food stamps and I’m going cut my nose off to spite my face by not paying $30.00 for a drug test so I can keep on receiving free money?
Porter…bless your heart. There are actually people out here who cannot spare the $30 for a drug test. They are called “the poor”. I know it’s a hard concept to wrap your brain around but they do exist. There are also people who will stand on principle no matter how harsh the outcome. So yes, there are some people who will find other means to eat so they do not have to submit to a drug test. Drug and non-drug users.
@Contrarian
You can’t fix stupid.
Contrarian… the young lady with the four children I referenced chose to support her husband’s drug habit and not pay her rent in three locations she rented in the last two years. Certainly she is poor, I but don’t have compassion for someone that willfully makes bad choices and compromises her children’s future. She now owes $6000 in judgements and her ex con husband owes an additional $3000 in judgements for properties he defaulted on. Good choices all around. She found the money to pay for her $50 fine that caused her license to be suspended and when she was caught she paid it. She got another ticket in November in Edgewood for $90 at Treetop and Brookside. She hasn’t paid it yet and her license is suspended, again. Yes, there are poor people, and there are also willfully ignorant people who refuse to do differently.
“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” Herman Melville
You do not have to pay for the test unless it was positive for illegal drugs.
@Retiredawhile
So if the results were false why would I not pay for a new test to get free money?
Even if the test cost $50 for the re-test and I only get $50 per month it’s worth it.
RetiredAWhile……I think that was the problem in Florida. The tax payers were picking up the cost for the “negative” drug tests? Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, have a good day.
Porter,
I am in agreement with you on this issue. Clean drug tests do not cost the applicant anything. If I knew I was free of illegal drugs and somehow came up positive, I would take the retest. Additionally, someone who comes up positive may designate another individual to receive benefits on behalf of the children. Children do not have to go hungry just because a parent is using illegal drugs. That is the law in Florida.
Contrarian,
The taxpayers of Florida, for the most part, supported the testing. The testing was suspended via court order. The courts position was that the testing constituted an unreasonable search without probable cause. This ruling is currently under appeal.
@Retiredawhile
Our friend Contrarian is more interested in not stigmatizing drug users or people receiving government assistance. I have no problem stigmatizing people on the dole.
RetiredAWhile…The taxpayers of Florida, for the most part, supported the testing. The testing was suspended via court order. The courts position was that the testing constituted an unreasonable search without probable cause. This ruling is currently under appeal.
So you would you agree to support this bill even if we the taxpayers have to pay the cost of the drug tests that come back negative? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the tests taken come back negative. This was a problem for the Governor of Florida as he did not anticipate the cost to the tax payers. The cost to Florida taxpayers was estimated at $34,000 a month before the court suspended the program.
Contrarian,
You asked to be corrected if you were wrong, so I provided the correct information. The vast majority of citizens in Florida did not have, and do not currently have a problem with the testing. The testing was stopped by the court, not the citizens. The court ruling is currently under appeal.
I personally have no opinion one way or the other regarding drug testing. I was involved for many years in public safety, and was tested prior to being hired, and then tested from time to time throughout my career. I did not take offense to being tested, why would I, I was never on drugs.
Hey Contrarian,
“Of course, I am not as smart as you and obviously lacking in common sense.” – Not my statement nor intent.
“Maybe people couldn’t afford to pay the $30 to take the drug test?” – They get reimbursed for the money if it comes back negative.
“Maybe people are actually offended and believe their rights are being trampled on simply because they are in need of food.” – There is no right to any welfare program.
“Here my friend you are just wrong. Children do not receive food stamps. The parents/guardian/adult of children receive food stamps for the care of the child. If the parent fails the drug test then the food stamps are taken away therefore affecting the innocent, non-drug using child.” – Not necessarily true. If their parents are using, how are their parents getting the drugs? Perhaps the welfare benefits?
“What do you suggest? Keep passing along the food stamps until we find a non-drug user in the family?” – My radical proposal would be to take the children away from unfit parents to ensure they are fed, clothed, and taken care of.
“Hand the money over to DSS and have the govt. workers go grocery shopping for the child? Unintended consequences. The program will cost tax payers more over the long run as we create a new govt. program to fix the fallout from this bill/law.” – Possibly.
“The elderly, do we even want to drug test an 80 year old? If the elderly person happens to be on a fixed income like SS, do we really want to make them pay $30 for a drug test?” – Yes, test, and they would get reimbursed.
“If the 80 year old fails the drug test do we then deny himn/her food?” – Place them in a facility to aide in their dependency problem and provide them food as well. This would go for anyone.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Maybe people couldn’t afford to pay the $30 to take the drug test?” – They get reimbursed for the money if it comes back negative. The applicants are not immediately reimbursed. The applicant is reimbursed through the benefits at a later date which doesn’t help with the up front cost.
“Maybe people are actually offended and believe their rights are being trampled on simply because they are in need of food.” – There is no right to any welfare program. Civil Rights. Read the court case now pending in Florida.
“Here my friend you are just wrong. Children do not receive food stamps. The parents/guardian/adult of children receive food stamps for the care of the child. If the parent fails the drug test then the food stamps are taken away therefore affecting the innocent, non-drug using child.” – Not necessarily true. If their parents are using, how are their parents getting the drugs? Perhaps the welfare benefits?
What???????
“What do you suggest? Keep passing along the food stamps until we find a non-drug user in the family?” – My radical proposal would be to take the children away from unfit parents to ensure they are fed, clothed, and taken care of. And put them where? Foster care? Another government run program full of problems, abuse and fraud. There is such a thing as functioning addicts. I don’t want to go down this road about addicts but again even the discusssion of this piece of legislation shows all of the unintended consquences that will cost tax payers more money in the long run.
The bill won’t pass. Good night.
First of all drugs should be legal and no one should be denied the paltry benefits given by our government for drug use. This is about social justice and the 99%.
Hey Contrarian,
“The applicants are not immediately reimbursed. The applicant is reimbursed through the benefits at a later date which doesn’t help with the up front cost.” – They still get reimbursed. I agree that it should be immediate.
“Civil Rights. Read the court case now pending in Florida.” – There is no right to welfare. It is not in the Constitution, nor is there a Supreme Court case on it. There are cases discussing welfare, specifically Goldberg v. Kelly which discussed due process rights must be followed to terminate someone from welfare, however, there is nothing about a fundamental right to it.
“What???????” – Huh?
“And put them where? Foster care? Another government run program full of problems, abuse and fraud.” – Fix the system, not the complain about it.
“There is such a thing as functioning addicts.” – No, there isn’t.
“I don’t want to go down this road about addicts but again even the discusssion of this piece of legislation shows all of the unintended consquences that will cost tax payers more money in the long run.” – Why should my tax money be spent on druggies? It shouldn’t.
“The bill won’t pass. Good night.” – You are right, in Maryland, one of the most liberal states in the Union, it won’t. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t.
Anyways, have a nice day.
TANF applications will go down any time you add any additional layer or requirement. There are hard figures out there about the reduction in applications in FL, go look them up. However, they need to be put into context. In a previous job one of our functions was actually tracking applications at DSS and producing reports on the numbers of applicants. Day of the week, week of the month, month of the year, weather, and even the simplest additional requirements can have major impacts on how many people decide to fill out applications. In one case, the only additional requirement was to wait about 15 minutes for a short presentation explaining what they were applying for and what they needed to do to get the benefits, and that made applications go down. Just because applications went down after they started testing FL may not mean much of anything.
I can personally guarantee you that plenty of people who get Social Security and VA benefits use that money for abusive behavior. The point Contrarian was making was that there are many types of government programs and funds that are NSA (no strings attached) and the recipients are not drug tested. To question who we test and who we do not, is a valid talking point.
And yes, while bills of this type would not pass the Assembly, and the effort can be percieved as wasted effort, the ultimate goal is to curry favor in your home district. That goal will be accomplished. Like I said before, I hope the effort is genuine and there is an additional goal of creating a real conversation that might lead to actual reforms.
@Noble…I agree with you and you definitely understood my post. The system needs to be reformed from within the government. The system is broken and we are not going to fix it by drug testing food stamp applicants.
While I was unemployed in the summer of 2010 I applied for food stamps. Based on my income, which was unemployment and what was in my checking account before unemployment, I got the maximum allowed—$16 a month. I also had to register with the Susquehanna Workforce and attend a mandatory job-find workshop, but I found a job before I had to attend and once I started working, ended my food stamps. $16 a month wasn’t worth losing $120 of a day’s work by spending probably an entire day at Social Services reapplying for benefits I probably wouldn’t get.
So many people think you can get food stamps just like that but the truth is, there are a lot of hoops to jump through. My 83 year-old grandfather was denied them because his pensions and SS are only a few dollars short of the cutoff amount, and he would have benefited more from this program than I ever could.
I don’t think drug testing applicants is the answer. Too many people automatically assume all food stamp recipients are lazy, shiftless junkies and they’re not because I’ve worked with the low-income and homeless population. But the Ronald Reagan myth of the “welfare queen”, still told by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and any right-wing conservative in office or running for office, lives on and it’s extremely unfair to stereotype.
I know people abuse the system. But the Florida testing turned out to be a dud and a waste of taxpayer money—the last thing Maryland needs is to jump into this mess. There are so many other important issues to resolve than again jumping on the Tea Party bandwagon of shaming and demonizing poor and working class Americans.
I appreciate and understand your experience. I know that a tenant of mine filed for the Independence Card. She was receiving about $700 a month from an ex for her and her two year old son. $350 of that went for her rent to me for the bedroom she shared with her son. I provided meals often because she couldn’t afford food on her own despite her desire to be independent. She left my home under very undesirable circumstances and to this day I wonder what she will do when her son becomes school age since she seems to cultivate a spontaneous change of address when it suits her. About seven months after she left, I received a letter in the mail notifying her that she qualified for an amount per month that I believe was well less than $100. My son and I spend on average about $300 per month. HDG, your experience is unlike many of the stories that have been shared here. $16 seems like an insult to me – but only further reinforces my belief that the young lady with the four children I mentioned earlier was receiving up to $400 a month – while supporting her husband’s drug use.
HDG Reader…great post. I have heard several stories of people receiving $30, $40, $50 etc, a month in food stamps. People are being punished for actually working and having an income. People such as yourself who lost your job and was receiving your earned unemployment benefits. You applied for food stamps only to turn around and be insulted by the government awarding you $16 a month. Can you imagine if you had to pay for the $30 drug test? The system is broken. The bill is wrong for many reasons but one is because it paints every food stamp applicant with the same broad brush.
It may seem like people are being “punished” for working, but in reality, it’s just a quirk of the calculations. All benefits are calculated using numerous variables, and whenever you have a cut-off, such as an income limit, you are going to have people who just barely qualify for the minimum amount of benefit. Most of the people getting the $16 are getting unemployment or full social security payments for a lifetime of work, and many of them just decide to forget about the $16. But there are also people who say that $16 is good for a handful of meals every month and they keep it.
I don’t think you can design a more fair system, unfortunately.
Noble…I agree the benefits are distributed fairly when based off a mathematical calculation. I simply disagree with the entire process. I do recognize that it would be nearly impossible to award the benefits under any other scenario besides a mathematical calculation. I strongly believe in term limits or time limits when receiving certain types of government assistance such as food stamps. I don’t think that a person in need such as HDG Reader who was working but lost his/her job and needed food stamps until he/she found another job should be given $16 a month based on a calculation of his/her unemployment benefits. When you lose a job and have to collect unemployment there is normally a significant change in your income level. It is people like HDG Reader that the government should try and help the most. The system is broken.
Well I don’t think they should get the $16 either, but as I said, there is no more fair way to do it. It sounds like you are suggesting the benefits should be calculated based on loss of income, rather than current income. Meaning, if someone made $60k a year and now has unemployment of $30k, they should get a benefit calculated by the $30k difference… interesting idea I’ve never considered, but I don’t think that would work.
Should a two-earner household that goes to one earner because of loss of job qualify above the standard income limits? I’m not sure that encourages people to cut back on their expenses and live within their means.
We had our household income drop from $235,000 a year to $70,000 a year. We are ineligible for government assistance other than unemployment shouldn’t we get something from the government to help us in our time of need?
99 Percenter,
Of course you should be getting help, and if were not for that mean 1%, you would be!!
What we’re talking about here (calculating benefits on loss of income) would lead to the largest increase in welfare programs we could ever even imagine, we do realize that right? You think more people qualified for and applied for benefits during the recession? You wouldn’t have scratched the tip of the iceberg with a toothpick.
In the example posted above (going from 230 to 75k), I am gussing most people would expect you to cut back on all of your misc expenses (cable, etc), sell off anything of excess value that you own, possibly including your home, and restructure your life to live within your new circumstances— I say this only because this is exactly what people expect of their government and from private businesses.
I can personally speak to examples too numerous to count of people who have had a similar loss of income, but for months, sometimes 2 or even 3 years, refuse to change their lifestyle and standard of living– continuing to eat out 3 times a week, not even trying to sell a boat, not trying to sell an extra car, etc., and all the while they haven’t made a mortgage payment in 2 years. Some people just don’t get it.
That is not to say that any of that applies to the person who posted that situation, because I don’t know their situation. To them, I would only say that you should be seeking out counsel from a financial adviser and a homeownership counselor in your area, as well as working with (not ignoring) your creditors to ensure that you stay ahead of the game and get forebearances and loan modifications wherever possible. And I hope your situation improves as soon as possible.
That kind of dramatic change in a home can lead to all sorts of other family crises, so I hope that you and yours are well and at peace. Do not be hesitant to seek other counseling as necessary.
Noble,
With regard to my post, I was of course kidding. Hopefully, 99% was also. At least that’s how I took it.
In reality, I would agree with you.
Retired,
I considered that the other post was in jest also, but I couldn’t say either way. Figured I would expound on the idea anyway. Benefits based on lost income is an interesting concept. I see some merit to it though, truthfully, but I just can’t see it with a real world application.
@99 Percenter, you are confusing want and need.
@Noble..you said…….Meaning, if someone made $60k a year and now has unemployment of $30k, they should get a benefit calculated by the $30k difference… interesting idea I’ve never considered, but I don’t think that would work.
You are probably right. However, I wasn’t advocating for the applicant to receive benefits based on the difference between their salary when employed and then unemployed. I would like to see a stipulation added to the food stamp policy for people who fall into the situation mentioned above. I think the govt. should offer temporary food stamp assistance with a maximum amount and a time limit for people who only qualify due to the stipulation. Stipulation….receive food stamps in the amount of $300 a month for a 6 month maximum time period. (just an example) I would use the same amount and time frame for all applicants qualifying under the “stipulation”.
The 6 months will afford the applicant the time needed to take advantage of some of the options listed in your post……. To them, I would only say that you should be seeking out counsel from a financial adviser and a homeownership counselor in your area, as well as working with (not ignoring) your creditors to ensure that you stay ahead of the game and get forebearances and loan modifications wherever possible. All very good ideas.
My advice to the disenfranchised poor is to get housing assistance, Medicaid, MCHIP, work a job long enough to earn unemployment benefits, receive food stamps, sell stuff at flea markets and on Craigslist, hide any savings you have from view and work off the books.
It’s not cheating since this is the only way you can level the playing field. There are plenty of employers who will pay off the books so your benefits are not lost.
Disgusting
DavidAPorter..your experience with your tenant(s)has left a sour taste in your mouth that you have yet to over come. Your tenant(s) sounds like an irresponsible tenant and an irresponsible mother on top of being a drug user. I also sense some “personal” animosity going on but that is neither here nor there. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject matter.
I think you nailed the tenant thing… precisely what are you saying we should agree to disagree on?
Agree to disagree on the subject of drug testing food stamp applicants.
RetiredAWhile…I wasn’t accusing you of anything or implying anything about your post. I was just asking a question. Thanks.
You’re welcome, and I took no offense at your post.
Apparently, what’s good for the goose is NOT what’s good for the gander.
“A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/welfare-drug-testing-bill_n_1237333.html